EchelonGraph verdictMonitorNo release containing the referenced fix is confirmed: check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule (the SSVC decision on this page).
- •Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS: 5.3Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed
A fix is referenced (a reference tagged "Patch", often a source commit), but no release containing it is confirmed — find the release that contains it; until it is applied, mitigate (WAF / firewall / segmentation).
bt_hfp_hf_connect() in subsys/bluetooth/host/classic/hfp_hf.c allocates the per-connection HFP Hands-Free object with hfp_hf_create(), which starts an SDP discovery by passing the object's embedded hf->sdp_param to bt_sdp_discover(). That call links the caller-owned parameter block into the SDP client's request list (session->reqs in subsys/bluetooth/host/classic/sdp.c). If the subsequent bt_rfcomm_dlc_connect() then failed, the affected code wiped the entire object with (void)memset(new_hf, 0, sizeof(*new_hf)) while that discovery was still outstanding, zeroing the sys_snode_t _node that is still linked in the SDP client's list along with the request's func, uuid and pool pointers, and zeroing the hf->slc_work work item that may already be queued on the system workqueue. The discovery could not be retracted instead: bt_sdp_discover_cancel() is declared in include/zephyr/bluetooth/classic/sdp.h but has no implementation.
The failing branch is reachable with peer-supplied input. The documented use of bt_hfp_hf_connect() is to pass the RFCOMM channel read out of the remote Audio Gateway's SDP record; neither bt_sdp_get_proto_param() nor bt_hfp_hf_connect() range-checks that value, so a remote device advertising an HFP AG record with an RFCOMM channel outside 1-30 makes bt_rfcomm_dlc_connect() return -EINVAL and drives the local device into the wipe. The same branch is reached without any application misuse when the remote peer controls connection timing, for example when the RFCOMM session is in BT_RFCOMM_STATE_DISCONNECTING or the ACL is dropped between object creation and the RFCOMM call.
Once the object has been wiped, the Bluetooth host continues to use it: sdp_client_alloc_buf() dereferences session->param->pool, which is now NULL, and the SDP receive paths call session->param->func() through a null function pointer, neither of which is NULL-checked. Because the wipe also clears hf->acl, the pool slot is considered free and a retry or an incoming HFP connection re-appends the same still-linked list node, turning session->reqs into a self-referential list that the host's list walkers never leave. The result is a fault or an unrecoverable hang in the Bluetooth host thread; the stray indirect call is through an all-zero pointer whose target the attacker does not control, so the practical impact is denial of service.
The fix keeps the object allocated and marks it with a new BT_HFP_HF_FLAG_RELEASING flag, letting bt_hfp_hf_discover_cb() release it once the discovery completes instead of destroying it under the SDP client. Only builds with CONFIG_BT_CLASSIC and CONFIG_BT_HFP_HF enabled are affected.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.3 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is referenced, but no release containing it is confirmed. Check the referenced fix and the vendor's advisory for a release that contains it; until one is applied, restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation on your normal schedule.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
No released fix is confirmed on this page, but CISA's timeline does not wait for a fix's release: it starts when an agency identifies the flaw on an asset and updates the CDM Agency and Federal Dashboard, and the directive counts patching, decommissioning the system or another action as remediation. Until a fixed release is applied, mitigate as this page's verdict says. In the directive's words, “Fix on system upgrade” means that, “unless conditions change”, the vulnerability “should be remediated the next time the vulnerable asset receives a scheduled major upgrade or rebuild”: its timelines are “dynamic as facts change”, and a KEV listing shortens them.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it